Home Page

The Correlation Between Magic Tricks and Special Effects in The Prestige
+ Ideological Criticism of Victorian Marriage as Presented in The Prestige
 
One of the integral questions in film studies is: what does a film mean and what does it have to do with movies more broadly? Nolan's movie causes me to reflect over this question from a new angle as he is clearly using the archaic practice of stage performing magicians to represent the more modern practice of "movie magic"--the designing and capturing of effects that fool the audience. Here we have a movie that is about movie making (or at least about using special effects) which is ironic because this makes it rather self-referential. A number of the themes and concerns repeated in the movie are mirror reflections of this industry they are intended to correlate to--the need to continually up the ante, the secret desire of the audience to be fooled even for just a moment, and the need to adequately warm up the audience for what they are about to see (showmanship). I would not call this film a criticism of others by any means but rather a curious and subtle commentary on the profession of dazzling audiences through contrived and controlled means. What Michael Cain's character does in the movie (designing the Great Danton's illusions) is not all that different than what special effects designers do for a living, he simply does not have anywhere near the technological sophistication of his modern counterparts. This causes me to pause and reevaluate the way I think about special effects. They have become so commonplace and integral to a wide array of movie genres so we no longer notice them or consider them beyond the moment in which we are wowed by them. While this movie is, upon consideration, rather obvious about what it is doing it makes me think about other movies in which some aspect of movie making might have been commented on. This idea of movies being a commentary on the actual process of movie making could be an interesting aspect of the initial "film scholar question" because instead of relating two films based on similarity or contrasting their key differences in terms of the story or formal elements, here it becomes apparent that one must also look for comments and critiques of the actual film-making process no matter how subtle because it provides insight from an insider perspective.
There is one particular scene of The Prestige that is interesting from an ideological perspective--the scene in which Borden's wife hangs herself. Unable to bear the extreme duality that she is forced to endure, she finally breaks, going to Borden's workshop and hanging herself from the rafters. From a feminist perspective this scene represents the extreme sexism of Victorian England, the time period during which this movie is set. For a woman in that environment there were only two options, marriage or a nunnery. Borden's wife obviously chose marriage, as most did, and she discovered that her husband was not as he seemed, as most also did. In this scene is encapsulated the frustration of countless Victorian women in the inability to escape--the lack of any form of recourse. To leave one's husband would forever label oneself as a foul disreputable woman (someone universally despised), a fate described by some female intellectuals of the time as worse than death, while to remain with him would cause an eventual hollowing out of the soul (which has been similarly described). Unable to accept one edge or the other of this double edged sword, she hung herself and left her only child with a man that drove her to suicide. Each of the three options detailed are similarly unappealing yet they are the only three possible options for the character. Her situation and her powerlessness to remedy matters in any way presents a startling criticism of marriage that culminates in her suicide. Although this is overshadowed by the more primary elements of the plot, it is an important point for consideration.

-Rough Outline of "Moments of Meaning Scene Analysis" Essay

Hook: It is said that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts but what judgment could ever accurately be made as to the greatness of the whole without taking into account the parts of greatness.

Thesis: The better approach to film criticism is the Formalist Approach because while the broader considerations of the Ideological Approach favor tones, themes, or overall messages arising collectively through patterns and repetitions the Formalist approach permits the appreciation of the full creative richness and elaborately crafted meanings and symbolisms of the  individual scenes which ultimately lend to a greater interpretation of the work as a whole.

P1 Discuss basic layout of ideological approach/problems
Eisenstein puts forth in his "Montage of Attractions" article: "...the principles of building a "construction that has impact" (the performance as a whole), instead of a static "reflection" of a given event necessary for the theme, and of the possibility of its resolution solely through effects logically connected with such an event
-Implies that meaning should emerge from the collective of scenes as opposed to meaning emerging from a single event and this may be so, but it seems equivalent to focusing on the back of a book as opposed to diving in to the individual chapters [more evidence to come]
-Searching for themes and repetitions across scenes has great potential for shallowness and misrepresentation [example to be provided]

P2 Discuss Formalist approach/benefits
-An emphasis on individual scenes to understand in-depth the pieces of meaning which seemingly would eventually gift the analyst through understanding of the fundamental pieces a better understanding of the whole [discuss fundamentals of the theory more]
-Consider the depth provided to understanding by Perkins' in-depth analysis of the shower scene using Formalist approach; certain scenes contain the kernel of the movie's broader rich meaning and to ignore such specifics unquestionably has a generalizing effect possibly resulting in a meaning that misconstrues or negates

P3 Discuss some accepted ideological messages of Psycho [from the Ideological approach] and demonstrate that their inadequacy= discuss the depth of two [as of yet unchosen] specific scenes and their meanings then compare the analysis of the individual scenes with the ideological approach conclusions to prove that meaning is unquestionably lost somewhere between the two approaches

[Please bear in mind that these would be very long paragraphs so the format needs to be played with a bit but the basic course and intent of the argument is adequately represented although rather basically]

Conclusion:----{TBD}

Auteur Theory: Faithfulness to and Divergence from Steinbeck
One of the most important scenes in the movie is that in which the central theme of the film is made painfully obvious. It is the scene in which the entire family is eating at the uncle's house before Jon has arrived. This scene is remarkably family-centric establishing the emphasis on this particular family unit that drives the movie. Showing them eating together is of significance as scenes of people breaking bread together typically establishes a certain unity and trust. This moment establishes the primary theme of the movie as the trials and tribulations of a family unit trying to survive which is divergent from the spirit of Steinbeck's novel which emphasizes the broader consideration of "the family of mankind" and the necessity of unity among the working man for purposes of collectively and righteously demanding a larger piece and to be given some common human dignity.
Cinematographically the camera work enforces this theme of unity by pulling the audience into this family unit and instilling some sort of camaraderie with the characters by setting up each shot to seem (based on distance and elevation) as if one were sitting across the table with each shot being a different glance from person to person.
This emphasis on family unity is further evidenced clearly in a scene where after hitting the road to go to California they stop for the night and hear a man telling them about the situation in California. They are instantly distrustful of him emphasizing distinctly a certain clannishness contrary to Steinbeck's unity of the human "family".  
Cinematographically, although they are all within close proximity of each other, this outsider is distanced from them by the nature of the shots which seem to set him apart from them. However, the lighting seems to provide a subtle allusion to the fact that all of them are (both literally and figuratively) sitting in darkness.
Although the central theme is clearly apart from the spirit of the novel provided, there is a scene I keep coming back to in which Tom emphasizes (though by no means clearly and outspokenly) the collective plight of all the workers and how perhaps if they all would rise up there would be no choice but to listen from them. This is his "I'll be there speech" the tone of which is profoundly populist. The camera work during this scene is interesting in terms of the way setting is used. When they begin talking about his leaving they are clearly in front of the dance stage yet as the conversation grows more serious the camera moves in, blurring out the setting entirely to the point that all it seems is darkness behind the characters. As Tom is giving his speech the audience is pulled in by Fonda's charisma until it seems nothing else remains of the world but what this man is saying--Tom, the man on the moon.

Based on what I have seen and understood of this movie it seems that it is profoundly not of the same spirit as the novel it is based on but there are important flickers of this spirit seen throughout the film that seem to carry the message of the novel if one simply looks for it and reads between the lines. I feel it is important to note that the spirit of the novel is incorporated in the midst of the Ford and Toland's reinterpretation. It is readily apparent that the rethinking of this story was indeed carefully considered and it is apparent that there was no "humanzee" sitting idle off screen. Although one of the themes of auteurism is arguably being faithful to the spirit of the foundational work, I believe the level of creativity necessary to make a valid reinterpretation legitimizes the movie as a separate work and allows the audience to see something of the auteur in the film. I believe the auteur theory to be legitimate in this case and it certainly is fitting to describe the way in which certain people in the film business function and hold to. However, it is impossible to say if it is legitimate or not because it is a theory pertaining to an art form, and given that each work of art is fundamentally related yet abundantly different in and of itself legitimizes the theory. But it is also necessary for academic purposes and for better or worse have the ability to classify and explain as best as possible and auteur theory fulfills this end and is, considering the above analysis, valid in its practical applications to explain and understand works such as Ford and Toland's The Grapes of Wrath.

Godard's Alternate Idea of What a Film Should Be

There is a moment in which Paul has met up with his friend Robert at the Laundromat and engages him in a discussion about the movie’s theme (not directly of course—he does not acknowledge that they are in a movie)—about men and women, masculine and feminine. It is a lively discussion which is reflected by the constant changing of shots which seems to be intended to convey tension, apprehension, and a bit of frustration. In the course of this moment, of this discussion, Godard does not bend the conventions but rather breaks them asunder entirely. For instance, while the camera is on Paul and he is moving about while speaking with his friend, it goes from shot to shot with perhaps a few degrees or more of angle change between the shots making the scene seem jumpy and tense. This defies both the 30 degree convention between shots as well as the convention of continuity of editing, of “invisible editing”, as the quick choppy cutting from shot to shot often seemingly to the same shot is so obvious that it is inconceivable that Godard did not do it intentionally as an attempt to convey something to the audience. This indicates that Godard believes that the direction (the techniques used and meanings conveyed through cinematography) is as important if not more important than the story itself in conveying the meaning of the film. He seems to be transcending the perception of film as a framing device for a story—film as a window that you get sucked in to while you are watching—and asserting the film-making aspects of cinema as the primary driving force behind the movie where the audience can learn as much about the character motivations and deeper meanings from the manner in which something is framed as the reactions conveyed by the actors and the direction of the actual script.